Y U NO JS ACTIVATED? JAVASCRIPT DISABLEDWe get it. We often have problems with Javascript ourselves. We also congratulate you on your choice to view the Web safely by turning off scripting. However, to view, navigate, and use this site properly, you must enable Javascript. Otherwise, your experience here will be lacking. (Gets down from soap box.)

We make mistakes, and sometimes that hurts others. So we apologize. Sometimes they don't accept. So we apologize again with more gusto. At this point, they might even get angrier. Why are they telling us to get lost? Why are they filing for divorce? Why aren't they answering the phone? Why aren't they accepting our apology? There's clearly something missing.

Here we are apologizing in attempts to correct a damaged relationship. We've hurt or inconvenienced someone with our actions, and saying "I'm sorry" is intended to express remorse, take some responsibility, and repair the damage. Some researchers think there may be up to five components of an effective apology: "a statement of apology (I'm sorry), remorse (I feel badly), an offer of restitution, self castigation (I was an idiot), and a request for forgiveness." Others go further and claim another component is also important: what really matters to the offended party?

When is an apology not an apology? What makes an effective apology? If someone apologizes to you, how do you know when it's sincere? How do you respond to someone when they give you what you think is a fake or insincere apology? If someone puts a condition on an apology (e.g., "if your feelings were hurt," "if you misunderstood what I said"), do you consider it sincere? When is an apology not good enough? If someone doesn't forgive you, what was missing? What does it mean to forgive? Are apologies by politicians pointless because we should know they won't change?

We all want an apology when someone does us wrong. Are the apologies effective? From the person giving the apology, it may be assumed so. From the perspective of the person receiving, it, maybe not. But showing changed behavior may be more convincing...

So does believing in the possibility of change shape people's ability to forgive-and trust again? It does, dramatically. As the scientists reported in the journal Psychological Science, they easily eroded trust and they also easily restored it-but only in those who believed in moral improvement. Those who believed in a fixed moral character, incapable of change, were much less likely to regain their trust after they were betrayed.

These results have practical implications for anyone trying to make amends and reestablish trust-in recovery, in business, in love-and yes, in politics. Apologies and promises may not be enough in some cases, and indeed it may be more effective to send a convincing message about the human potential for real moral transformation. The best way to send that message, of course, may be to act like a changed person.

We all admire beauty, but the mind ultimately must be stimulated for maximum arousal. Longevity in relationships cannot occur without a meeting of the minds. And that is what Braincrave is: a dating venue where minds meet. Learn about the thoughts of your potential match on deeper topics... topics that spawn your own insights around what you think, the choices you make, and the actions you take.

We are a community of men and women who seek beauty and stimulation through our minds. We find ideas, education, and self-improvement sexy. We think intelligence is hot. But Braincrave is more than brains and I.Q. alone. We are curious. We have common sense. We value and offer wisdom. We experiment. We have great imaginations. We devour literacy. We are intellectually honest. We support and encourage each other to be better.

The Braincrave.com discussion group on Second Life was a twice-daily intellectual group discussions typically held at 12:00 PM SLT (PST) and 7:00 PM SLT. The discussions took place in Second Life group chat but are no longer formally scheduled or managed. The daily articles were used to encourage the discussions.